This thesis examines how two rated left leaning newspapers; The New York Times and The Guardian framed the ICC arrest warrant on Benjamin Netanyahu from the day it was issued, on the 21st of November 2024 until the 28th of November 2024. Using qualitative content analysis and framing theory on primary sources, the research identifies similarities in the unprecedented nature of the ICC issuance, gives voice to a range of international reactions, and acknowledges the difficulties in the jurisdictional turmoil of this issuance and past arrest warrants issued by the ICC. However, the study also identifies differences in the editors political standing, language and emphasis on international law as well as the exposure to external political pressures. The findings reveal that The New York Times employs a more cautious approach, often reflecting self-censorship and a sensitivity to accusations of antisemitism. The Guardian presents a clearer editorial criticism and emphasises issues of accountability and intimidation of ICC officials as well as legitimizing the issuance. These conditions shape the public understanding of international justice, and the ICC issued arrest warrant on Benjamin Netanyahu and the alleged crimes he has committed. As Peace and Conflict Studies emphasizes, media’s role in conflict is not neutral. By amplifying certain voices and frame the narrative of ICC’s legitimacy, these news outlets can influence the international public response and jeopardize or strengthen the potential peace building process. Recognizing this responsibility, it is crucial that news outlets that reports on international justice, facilitates a well informed and constructive dialogue that contributes to the legitimate and viable peace process for the Palestinians and the Israelis.